If this is your first visit, you may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Southern Utah

I&#039;m sure I could use some pointers as far as settings in Pano2VR go. Primarily, what "numbers" do you use to make a nice, crisp, full-screen interactive pano? How big is your equirectangular image prior to conversion? Any suggested settings for Pano2VR?

I am by no means an expert, but here is what I do.

I keep the panorama at full resolution and 100% detail all the way through the process until the very end. You need to sharpen the image in Photoshop as part of your workflow. Using my Nikon D300, my Sigma 8mm lens gives me a 8000x4000 image (40 megs). My Nikon 10.5 yields an image 11000x5500(70 megs).

In Pano2VR I use a cube face of 2000 and an image quality of 80. The final .swf file size is usually under 5 megs. I leave all the other settings alone. I also disable all zooming 99% of the time. Zooming in only gets you a pixelated image and USUALLY does not add anything to the panorama.

The lower the image quality setting, the smaller the final file size and the quicker it will load. Play with it until you get a setting you are comfortable with. With internet speeds increasing all the time, there will be a day (soon, I hope) that we can post our panoramas at 100% quality.

Re: Southern Utah

The lower the image quality setting, the smaller the final file size and the quicker it will load. Play with it until you get a setting you are comfortable with. With internet speeds increasing all the time, there will be a day (soon, I hope) that we can post our panoramas at 100% quality.

Please forget that law that states that you need to reduce size of pictures for Internet. If you publish your panoramas with tools such as KRPano or FPP that work with tiles, you can publish some very big pictures as speedy as low resolution ones When I stitch my panoramas I get a final TIFF file often bigger than 1Go and I use that file to publish on Internet without reduction of quality or resolution as KRPano manages that perfectly well

Re: Southern Utah

Please forget that law that states that you need to reduce size of pictures for Internet.

There is no law that states you need to reduce picture size for the internet.

Larger file sizes taking longer to load is true no matter what viewer is used or what internet speed the user has. The more bytes to transmit, the longer it will take to get the entire panorama to the workstation. There are technologies that break up the file into smaller bits. The downside is that as you pan to an area you have not seen before, you wait for that part of the panorama to load. As you zoom in, you wait for that data to load. 5 meg panorama fits into memory but does not have the best detail and really should have all zooming disabeled. Gigpixel panoramas have the best detail, but the entire panorama will not fit into memory, so you wait for the pieces to load. As internet speeds increase, we will be able to raise the quality. There will be a day when the KRPano technology will be common place. Internet speeds will be so high that the delay when panning and zooming will be so short it will almost be invisible to the end user. Until then, smaller files with less detail load faster than larger files with more detail. It is up to the panographer to decide what is acceptable and what technology to use.

The original question was asking for Pano2VR settings and original image dimensions. I provided my settings and an example of a panorama created with those settings. KRPano is the future, just not yet for me.

Re: Southern Utah

The other thing I have to consider, when considering file sizes, is not what the user can handle, but what my server will allow as monthly bandwidth usage.

I could, exaggerating to make my case, effectively put ONE large file (in size) that a FEW people could download before hitting my server&#039;s cap. Or I could place MANY smaller file sized images that MORE people could view before hitting that same cap.

I am, however, open to suggestions of places to store larger images free of charge. Until that point, I&#039;ll stick with small file sizes for use on the web.

Re: Southern Utah

I could, exaggerating to make my case, effectively put ONE large file (in size) that a FEW people could download before hitting my server&#039;s cap. Or I could place MANY smaller file sized images that MORE people could view before hitting that same cap.
I am, however, open to suggestions of places to store larger images free of charge. Until that point, I&#039;ll stick with small file sizes for use on the web.

You are right, bandwith limit of your hosting is something important to consider and very different in the world, from what I know in USA and Canada, most hosting are not unlimited bandwith ! In Europe, and mainly in France, hosting is traffic unlimited as ADSL/fiber connections